dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation)

dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation)

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

> WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> If the reference is valid then annotate the
> variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, 
> 
> WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> If the reference is valid then annotate the
> variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, 

FWIW, I find this test dubious. Matching on symbol names doesn't seem like 
a good idea to me. Can we introduce a new marker instead something like

static struct whatever_driver __driver driver = {
	.probe	= my_probe,
	.remove	= __exit_p(my_remove),
};

to put them in a new special section? Or is there a better solution?

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/

Re: dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation)

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> 
> > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> > the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> > If the reference is valid then annotate the
> > variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, 
> > 
> > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> > the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> > If the reference is valid then annotate the
> > variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, 
> 
> FWIW, I find this test dubious. Matching on symbol names doesn't seem like 
> a good idea to me. Can we introduce a new marker instead something like
> 
> static struct whatever_driver __driver driver = {
> 	.probe	= my_probe,
> 	.remove	= __exit_p(my_remove),
> };
> 
> to put them in a new special section? Or is there a better solution?

We already have that:
__refdata would be your choice in this case.

	Sam

Re: dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation)

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

On Sat, 9 May 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > 
> > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> > > the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> > > If the reference is valid then annotate the
> > > variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, 
> > > 
> > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> > > the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> > > If the reference is valid then annotate the
> > > variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, 
> > 
> > FWIW, I find this test dubious. Matching on symbol names doesn't seem like 
> > a good idea to me. Can we introduce a new marker instead something like
> > 
> > static struct whatever_driver __driver driver = {
> > 	.probe	= my_probe,
> > 	.remove	= __exit_p(my_remove),
> > };
> > 
> > to put them in a new special section? Or is there a better solution?
> 
> We already have that:
> __refdata would be your choice in this case.

Aha, great! Then also the warning text should be changed, shouldn't it?

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/

Re: dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation)

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 08:33:03PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Sat, 9 May 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > 
> > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> > > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> > > > the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> > > > If the reference is valid then annotate the
> > > > variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> > > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, 
> > > > 
> > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> > > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> > > > the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> > > > If the reference is valid then annotate the
> > > > variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> > > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, 
> > > 
> > > FWIW, I find this test dubious. Matching on symbol names doesn't seem like 
> > > a good idea to me. Can we introduce a new marker instead something like
> > > 
> > > static struct whatever_driver __driver driver = {
> > > 	.probe	= my_probe,
> > > 	.remove	= __exit_p(my_remove),
> > > };
> > > 
> > > to put them in a new special section? Or is there a better solution?
> > 
> > We already have that:
> > __refdata would be your choice in this case.
> 
> Aha, great! Then also the warning text should be changed, shouldn't it?

Yep - included __refdata in the warning now.

	Sam